David Brooks has an interesting take on the Democrats new strategy-which is to act as bombthrower and sabatuer of Republican ideas, ala Social Security reform. His advice? Don't bother copying the Republicans. Why? He believes that Gingrich was trying to reach the conservatives who tended to vote Democratic (ie: Southern Democrats), and in the end, he accomplished his goal of winning them over to the GOP. Brooks thinks the Dems are in a different position, already winning the liberals, but needing to win the suburban swing votes and being an obstacle doesn't help.
My own take is that the Dems need to see that the country has shifted rightward. Not as rightward as some Republicans would like, but it has shifted and has been doing so probably since Reagan took office. The key for the Dems is how to create a progressive agenda in a more conservative time. For example, they could propose some minor changes for Social Security and also propose stregthening the federally approved private accounts we already have such as 401(k)s and IRAs. The Dems have to learn how to take Republican ideas and fashion them in their own way. Instead of criticizing the whole "Ownership Society" that Bush espouses, the Dems should be coming up with their own idea-one that would see government as a partner in helping people become stakeholders in society and ensure a safety net.
But this means the Dems have to understand that they are no longer the ruling party anymore and learn how to win in a conservative leaning era. That doesn't mean abandoning principles like civil rights or gay rights, but they have to be fashioned for this era and not for one circa 1968. I doubt that the Dems are listening though.
Posted by Dennis at January 19, 2005 12:17 AMWhy do we only collect SS and Mecicare taxes on the first $88,000 of income? I pay SS taxes on 100% of my income, while Bill O'Rielly and Alex Rodriguez pay SS taxes on less than 10% of their's. It's the first part of a person's income, that is needed for survival. I find it very discriminatory. Companies that can afford to pay such high salaries also can afford to pay their half of the SS taxes.
medicare
Posted by: Dan Leary at April 14, 2005 09:27 PMI wonder if Mark is a letter writer. I know I may not be accomplishing everything I'd like our politicians to work on, but I do try to influence them with letters. I have received email replies from Congressional leaders (their aids, I'm sure) thanking me for my comments, so I hope I'm making a difference. So far, the moderate Democratic and moderate Republican leaders have impressed me as the common sense folks that I choose to support. As a fairly recent observer of politics usually by watching C-Span,I see right-wing Republican leaders putting on dramatic shows while moderates of both parties are practical and down-to-earth. By the way Kerry couldn't, in October, give any better answer as to an exit strategy from Iraq than Bush did. Circumstances change daily. The present administration doesn't plan to leave for a long time because there are still millions to be made by Halliburton, not to mention the fact that 14 new military bases that are being built there.
Posted by: Teena at January 31, 2005 12:24 PMDavid R. Francis at The Christian Science Monitor did the math. Social security was better.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1227/p01s03-cogn.html
Posted by: William Bollinger at January 20, 2005 12:32 PMAnyone that actually does the math and compares the value of SS benefits versus a private account, even with bad historic returns, would NEVER consider SS a good thing for retirement.
Even if you dont use the full 12% figure and only consider your 6% you still make out better with a 401k and a lousy return than you do with SS.
My only question is "why on earth arent 100% of those under 40 pushing for this?". Dont let your politics overrule mathematics.
Posted by: mike at January 20, 2005 06:38 AMPersonally, I think Dems just need to be the party who tries to get things done, even if that means giving a little here and there. More importantly, they need to be seen as the party who is constantly working to get things done... but then so do the republicans so perhaps it's more of a general thing.
I happen to think that people, and it can possibly be scaled up to parties, get into the most trouble when it becomes obvious they're secretly hoping the other will fail, no matter what it is.
Posted by: drunkenbatman at January 20, 2005 01:39 AMUntil we can become a multimillion dollar based lobbyist group, Congress ain't gonna notice.
We need to, each of us moderates, win our respective state lottos and pool our resources into buying into an industry, and then using our newfound clout to get in the doors.
Posted by: Paul Wartenberg at January 19, 2005 05:59 PMDennis,
I think it's pretty clear that a great many of our leaders and representatives aren't listening to us any more.
But that's really our own fault. People don't vote according to whether or not politicians really listen to their concerns and issues, and take appropriate actions. The politicians tell US what our concerns should be, and we vote according to whether or not we agree with them. At that point it doesn't matter if they deliver on the goods or not, because they've sold themselves as "the tax-cut party" or "the gay rights party" or "the anti-terror party", and consequently the opposite party is against those things. People thus vote accordingly, and results be damned.
When Bush detractors point out that the president is on a borrow-and-spend policy, very anti-conservative indeed, Bush supporters simply say "Kerry would have taxed us to death." When Kerry detractors pointed out that Kerry didn't give much of a plan for leaving Iraq, Kerry defenders respondeded with "Anything is better than Bush's lack of a plan."
So we've largely just let the politicians sell themselves on particular platforms, and we buy into the platform, not the results.
Posted by: Mark Kittel at January 19, 2005 10:10 AM